get_company_directorships

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get... Shows...') and describes the output scope (status, failure analysis). However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether data is paginated, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance. No redundant information, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (one required param, no output schema), the description covers what the tool does, what data it shows, and when to use it. It lacks explicit mention of return format or pagination, but for a simple lookup tool, this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'slug' is already described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema example, so it meets the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('Get full directorship history') and clearly identifies the resource ('any person from the NZ Companies Register'), including scope ('all company roles, current and historical') and unique value ('failure rate analysis'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_director or get_director_workload.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'when asked about a person's full board network, private company roles, directorship workload, or company failure history.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the provided use cases are clear and relevant.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.